In re McCabe, Patent Appeals No. 3809.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1937
• Docket Number: Patent Appeals No. 3809.
• Citation: 90 F.2d 111
• Parties: In re McCABE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

90 F.2d 111 (1937)

In re McCABE.

Patent Appeals No. 3809.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

June 7, 1937.

Langdon Moore, of Washington, D. C. (James Atkins, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.

R. F. Whitehead, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.

Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.

BLAND, Associate Judge.

The Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office rejected all of appellant's claims for a patent relating to a repulsion type relay. Upon appeal to the Board of Appeals, the decision of the Examiner was affirmed and appellant has here appealed for a review of the Board's decision.

The Examiner in great detail describes the invention, but sufficient description of it, we think, is found in the claims and in the decision of the Board. Concerning the nature of the invention the Board said:

"The invention relates to a repulsion type relay which utilizes the movement of a moving or floating coil of a movable transformer, such as is found in a constant current transformer to actuate the switch mechanism. The switch mechanism may be the ordinary open contact switch or the tilting mercury tube type of switch. The examiner has fully described the invention in his statement."

The references relied upon are: Johnston, 713,887, November 18, 1902; Hewlett, 745,347, December 1, 1903; Coleman, 1,066,081, July 1, 1913; Bogle, 1,908,009, May 9, 1933; Ulrich, 1,940,032, December 19, 1933.

Claim 16 is regarded as illustrative and reads:

"16. A repulsion relay including a transformer for alternating current having one coil stationary and one movable coil normally resting against the stationary coil when either or both coils are deenergized and when both coils are energized the movable coil is repelled from the stationary coil, and a tilting mercury switch actuated by the movement of the movable coil to make or break an electric circuit including a swinging arm and means to transmit movement of said coil to said arm."

The Examiner gave three grounds of rejection: First, that there would be no invention in using a mercury tube switch such as Ulrich or Bogle show in a device like that of Coleman, Johnston, or Hewlett, the latter three patents showing as they do a movable coil similar to that of the applicant; second, upon Coleman, Johnston, or Hewlett alone; third, that there was no patentable distinction over the subject-matter claimed in claims 1 and 2 of McCabe's patent 1,973,925, of September 18, 1934.

The Board disapproved of the third ground of rejection and it will not be considered here.

We find it necessary to consider only the first ground of rejection above stated. On this ground of rejection the Board said:

"The claims have been rejected on either Coleman, Johnson or Hewlett in view of Ulrich or Bogle. In each one of the first three patents, there is shown a circuit breaker which includes a fixed coil and a movable coil for breaking the circuit. In Hewlett, the primary coil moves and in Johnston and Coleman, the secondary coil moves to operate the switch. In Hewlett, an arm 25 on which the primary coil is supported, actuates a lever 14 which releases a switch. In Johnston, a lever G is actuated by...